Patterico's Pontifications

Sounds like one of those dumb ideas put out by the enviromentalists wackos and especialy green nut cases like AL GORE full of lies malarkey and bunk just like from most of that green poppycock bull kaka

krazy kagu (d982eb) — 3/29/2008 @ 12:31 pm

Glad I’m not the only one irritated by Google’s presumption.

Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 3/29/2008 @ 12:39 pm

Wait — a workaround – Set this as your home page.

It’s also a helpful reminder to use Firefox.

Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 3/29/2008 @ 12:49 pm

Thanks, Bradley. I like Firefox, too.

DRJ (a431ca) — 3/29/2008 @ 12:51 pm

What do you people have against environmentalists, exactly?

Levi (76ef55) — 3/29/2008 @ 2:00 pm

Levi,

Nothing, and that’s why I said “This may be a great idea.” I don’t like a black screen.

DRJ (a431ca) — 3/29/2008 @ 2:03 pm

Refering to the first and second commenters.

Levi (76ef55) — 3/29/2008 @ 2:04 pm

Levi,

A better question is why do environmentalists care who does or doesn’t agree with them:

“I just had a last minute thought re tonight’s Earth Hour event.

Between 8 and 9 tonight, I’ll be doing what I usually do at that time:I’ll be out with my wife walking our two dogs 5km around our small town.

Tonight, however, I’ll be looking at my neighbours’ windows to see which ones are participating in Earth Hour. I’ll be noting those houses and when the election campaign comes, I’ll be knocking on those doors. I’ll be armed with the knowledge that these are environmentally aware and concerned people and they are prime targets for a GPC campaign. I may knock on some of those doors even before an election

…if you’re out for a walk tonight while your lights are out, take note of who else has their lights out.”

I think this is a smart tactic but a bad strategy.

DRJ (a431ca) — 3/29/2008 @ 2:06 pm

One issue with “environmentalists” is that some have other, occasionally cryto goals. And, the MSM and similar sources that promote those “environmentalists”‘ plans almost always fail to look into what else they want.

TLB (62c4c5) — 3/29/2008 @ 2:06 pm

I’m not against environmentalism, I’m against stupid acts that do nothing but get a couple of folks in the paper and change nothing…

btw, iGoogle is unaffected by this retardation…

Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 3/29/2008 @ 2:10 pm

i’m going to turn on every light in the house, play the stereo, watch TV, and run the pool pump, while power surfing the Internet to keep the CPU at 100%.

hell, i may go out and start up the truck & let it idle for awhile.

redc1c4 (a877b7) — 3/29/2008 @ 2:24 pm

I have had much the same Idea, red…

Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 3/29/2008 @ 2:26 pm

What do you people have against environmentalists, exactly?

It’s not all of them, Levi…just those who use dubious enviromentalism as a trojan horse to advance questionable ideology.

Paul (b8f307) — 3/29/2008 @ 2:29 pm

Google’s tinkering with its logo for holidays and other minor stuff like that are fine. But here they’ve made a major, distracting change.

Google’s home page became justly famous for its minimalist layout and use of refreshing white space. It has taken that away, even if temporarily. What other stunts do they have in mind?

Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 3/29/2008 @ 2:30 pm

Only the classic homepage is affected. iGoogle retains whatever look you have given it with no change.

Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 3/29/2008 @ 2:34 pm

“What do you people have against environmentalists, exactly?”

Nothing, but I do object to sanctimonious ninnies walking their neighborhoods, noting who is not playing by their rules, and further assuming that the public at large is unable to use commonsense – all by themselves and apart from environmentalist instruction – with regard to their individual power usage.

When the enviros start paying my electric bill, I’ll be happy to do whatever they say!

Dana (fba430) — 3/29/2008 @ 3:01 pm

DRJ, the greenie out walking his dog is looking for people he can recruit for Obama in the fall. Same as if he was looking for people who have Sierra Club stickers on their cars–or if a McCain supporter took note of who has NRA bumper stickers.

That said, at 8 PM I will be using my computer
playing a CD in the CD player
be in the middle of washing a load of dishes in the dishwasher
starting a load of laundry in the washer
have the TV on in the living room for my mother’s use
have lights on upstairs and downstairs
and keep the water heater on longer than we usually do

kishnevi (a6ffde) — 3/29/2008 @ 3:31 pm

I understood that, Kishnevi, and that’s why I said it was a good tactic [to identify people who agree with you so you can call on them for help in the future] but I still think it’s a bad strategy to encourage people to wander their communities spying on their neighbors … even if it is for a “good cause.”

DRJ (a431ca) — 3/29/2008 @ 4:10 pm

I suspect I’ll end up with dirty looks if neighbors try such a tactic here.

I’ll be highly amussed if someone knocks on my door indignitly and asks if I know what that hour is… 🙂

I so hope they do…

Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 3/29/2008 @ 4:26 pm

wow… I can’t spell for crap tonight…

Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 3/29/2008 @ 4:26 pm

What I have against “environmentalists” is that most of the time, those who so label themselves have no real clue about effective actions to improve our environment. Instead they push silly, meaningless or even counter-productive policies.

When stuff like the Endangered Species Act is used not to actually advance the interest of species but as a stalking horse by Luddites to stop development, it shows that harm done by faux environmentalists.

SPQR (26be8b) — 3/29/2008 @ 5:24 pm

Paul #13 SPQR#21, so the environmentalists without the crypto agenda aren’t the same as “the environmentalists” is what you are saying. How is anyone else supposed to know the difference? Maybe someone could could coin a phrase like “Trojan horse environmentalists” when they are discussing “the environmentalists”. Otherwise it’s just meaningless lumping of people and their agendas all over again.

EdWood (186866) — 3/29/2008 @ 7:45 pm

FWIW, I don’t think many people even knew about Earth Hour. They should have combined this with Earth Day. It would have been easier to market.

DRJ (a431ca) — 3/29/2008 @ 8:11 pm

On the other hand, Earth Hour is big news in Rome, Sydney, and many other foreign cities. And San Francisco.

DRJ (a431ca) — 3/29/2008 @ 8:31 pm

We had the daughter’s sixth birthday party, tonight. About 40 kids and 20 parents. All the lights were turned on high, the doors were wide-open so people could just walk in, and the thermostats were set at 74 degrees, the temperature I like my house to be in. The temperature outside was about 45 degrees.

I enjoy the world God gave me. And I do not feel the least bit guilty for doing so.

nk (34c5da) — 3/29/2008 @ 8:53 pm

someone help me out here,
if Google was so concerned and wanted to support the ‘Earth Hour’, wouldn’t it have made more sense to just turn off all their pc’s and servers for the hour?

seaPea (c2bcbc) — 3/29/2008 @ 9:39 pm

No seaPea because if they were smart Google could do other things to save energy that wouldn’t cost them MONEY (like shutting down thier servers would do). Smart environmentalism makes sure that everyone is still making plenty of green if at all possible, one way or another.

EdWood (267ab5) — 3/29/2008 @ 10:15 pm

google doesnt give a damn about the environment. and with a flat screen monitor it uses more energy to do a black screen anyways.

chas (68d8c2) — 3/29/2008 @ 11:47 pm

I am personally a advocate of “practical enviromentalism”
Whazzat?
I replaced my bulbs with the new CFLs. My electric bill went down. We’ll see how long they live though, but for now I’ll stick with that.
When my house is dark (at least eight hours a day! Screw Earth hour, every night should be Earth’s night) it is Dark, no lingering computers, printers, instant on TV.s, cable boxes…off is OFF. Not a big deal.
In essence, I just try to use what I need. And like NK, when all the Boys are home from far flung places in the world,and the Grandchildren are bouncing off the walls, the lights are on the doors open the A/C is going and the Hot Tub is hot and the tunes are crankin’ But at the end of the day, the house is quiet, dark oops, I just noticed the clock on the stove…I wonder, can that be turned off?….LOL.
Like everyone else has said these other things and demonstrations are hangovers from the naive college days of activism, turned towards lining someone’s pocket.

paul from fl (47918a) — 3/30/2008 @ 6:14 am

Scott, #19…
I plan to do some re-loading tonight. Knocks on the door during those times are really annoying.

BTW, didn’t Rush announce that he was turning on every light at the Palm Beach manse for this event?

Another Drew (8018ee) — 3/30/2008 @ 6:30 am

#29 – I’m like that too. But “enviro friendly” is not the cause. Remember the MAD Magazine cartoon from the gas shortage in ’73?
“Always been this way, but before it was just being cheap” 🙂

seaPea (151932) — 3/30/2008 @ 8:02 am

It’s not all of them, Levi…just those who use dubious enviromentalism as a trojan horse to advance questionable ideology.

Oooo, that sounds awfully nefarious!

Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 9:25 am

Hey, did anybody read the link chas gave in #28? In the post update (emphasis mine):

While Google scolds the rest of the world about turning off the lights, HA reader Simon Scowl directs our attention to this month’s Harper’s, which has an interesting look at Google’s plans to exploit cheap electricity in Oregon. Thanks to a boatload of government subsidies, Google located its new server farm on the Columbia River — where it will use enough electricity to light Tacoma, Washington.

But that’s not the best part. According to Harper’s, Google and its competitors have now started building data centers in places like Lithuania, Dublin, Siberia, and Shanghai. What do all these locations have in common? Except for Lithuania, where 78% of the power will be nuclear, (!) all of them rely on carbon-spewing energy production with lower prices and fewer controls on emissions.

If you think Ed Morrissey is making this up, check out the Harper’s link.

This is why enviromentalists are viewed with skepticism in many quarters; hypocrisy runs rampant among far too many of them.

Paul (b8f307) — 3/30/2008 @ 9:28 am

Oooo, that sounds awfully nefarious!

It is nefarious…and true.

Paul (b8f307) — 3/30/2008 @ 9:30 am

What’s the big conspiracy then? Environmentalists are just trying to make a buck, or impose some sort of socialism?

Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 9:33 am

Environmentalists are just trying to make a buck, or impose some sort of socialism?

Yes

JD (a3d489) — 3/30/2008 @ 9:34 am

Environmentalists are just trying to make a buck, or impose some sort of socialism?

Both.

While they don’t follow their own rules for enviromental stewardship as they admonish everyone else.

Paul (b8f307) — 3/30/2008 @ 9:38 am

Could you get more specific?

Like, what’s the big plan? Who’s making the money? Who’s pulling the political strings?

Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 9:39 am

Oooh, I get it.

This is about Al Gore taking private jets and stuff?

Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 9:40 am

Thunder Tard (Phil) is back. Time to dumb down the threads.

daleyrocks (906622) — 3/30/2008 @ 9:43 am

Could you get more specific?

This is about Al Gore taking private jets and stuff?

What’s a-mattere?

Incapable of reading #33?

I’m not surprised.

Paul (b8f307) — 3/30/2008 @ 9:43 am

No, it’s exactly as I said it, ‘Al Gore taking private jets and stuff.’

And I can understand an angry reaction to preachers that don’t practice. But how does that lead to denying that global warming is occurring, or cheering on the Bush administration as environmental regulations are eviscerated?

Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 10:10 am

But how does that lead to denying that global warming is occurring, or cheering on the Bush administration as environmental regulations are eviscerated?

Where did I say either of the above in this thread?

This from a commenter that harps constsntly about making assumptions.

Reading comprehension, Levi…look into it.

Paul (b8f307) — 3/30/2008 @ 10:26 am

I don’t care about you, Paul. You’re a cog in a machine. I care about the machine (the Republican party). And the official line of the machine is exactly that; global warming probably isn’t happening and all environmental regulation can be justifiably eliminated by any sort of would-be extra cost or inconvenience, however slight or necessary, to business.

These aren’t assumptions, this is how the Bush administration has worked for the past decade.

Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 10:33 am

7 years is a decade using lib math. When you see the name Levi, insert EVIL BU$HITLERCO KILLS LIES DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT HATES SOME BROWN PEOPLE WARMONGERING NEOCON THECON CRIMINALS ARE THE DUMMEREST EVAH!

JD (5f0e11) — 3/30/2008 @ 10:41 am

I don’t care about you, Paul. You’re a cog in a machine.

Sure you do. That’s why you keep on commenting. If you really didn’t care, why bother visiting here and attempting to convert us curmudgeons?

And the official line of the machine is exactly that; global warming probably isn’t happening and all environmental regulation can be justifiably eliminated by any sort of would-be extra cost or inconvenience, however slight or necessary, to business.

No the line is: If it is happening, you and the rest of the global warming zealots aren’t going to change our minds by forming The Consensus(tm) based on faulty computer models, falsified data and failure to follow the scientific method.

These aren’t assumptions

Why, because you say so?

this is how the Bush administration has worked for the past decade.

Ah, the old Bush Administration fall back. You are aware Bush isn’t running this year, right?

And Bush has been in office for seven years. Or did you forget that Clinton was still President all during 2000?

Paul (b8f307) — 3/30/2008 @ 10:49 am

Oh come on JD…you forgot to throw in Halliburton.

Paul (b8f307) — 3/30/2008 @ 10:51 am

Sure you do. That’s why you keep on commenting. If you really didn’t care, why bother visiting here and attempting to convert us curmudgeons?

Rest assured, I do not give two shits about you except as you relate to and defend this idiot-fest that’s managed to take control of the country. I don’t care to convert you, either, you’re totally hopeless if you’re still with these people.

No the line is: If it is happening, you and the rest of the global warming zealots aren’t going to change our minds by forming The Consensus(tm) based on faulty computer models, falsified data and failure to follow the scientific method.

See, the fundamental problem here is, why not just go along with it anyways? There’s no downsides to improving the environment. Why do you absolutely need evidence that the world is for sure coming to an end for you to care about the environment? The suggestion isn’t enough? You can’t figure out the logic here? Finite resources, rampant growth, a closed system…. I mean I thought you people were supposed to be smart business types?

Between all the Republicans in this country, you don’t have an ounce of scientific credibility among you, so your disbelief is really cute, but utterly pointless and only illustrative of how wrapped around their finger big business has got all of you retards.

Ah, the old Bush Administration fall back. You are aware Bush isn’t running this year, right?

Are we talking about the election?

No, we aren’t. And anyway, as much as you people would love for us to forget all about George Bush and the Christ-like reverence you all inexplicably afforded him, he’s still the President, like today, and will be for the next couple of months. What’s more, the corrosive effect he’s had on our government will guarantee that Bush and his stupidity and corruption will be issues this election, and in the 2012 election, and beyond.

Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 11:25 am

Rest assured, I do not give two shits about you except as you relate to and defend this idiot-fest that’s managed to take control of the country. I don’t care to convert you, either, you’re totally hopeless if you’re still with these people.

No, you’re right, you don’t care. That’s why you wrote a 244-word comment in response.

See, the fundamental problem here is, why not just go along with it anyways?

So if you saw someone jump off Empire State Building, you’d do it too?

There’s no downsides to improving the environment.

There is if it is unnessecessary.

Why do you absolutely need evidence that the world is for sure coming to an end for you to care about the environment? The suggestion isn’t enough?

How do you know I don’t? Are you assuming again? After all the comments about making assumptions coming from you?

You can’t figure out the logic here? Finite resources, rampant growth, a closed system…. I mean I thought you people were supposed to be smart business types?

Finite resources: How do you know the resources are finite? Ask Paul Erlich about his bet on “finite resources.”

Rampant Growth: You could take everyone in the United States, place them inside Texas, and arrange everyone so that no two people are touching.

You could take everyone on the planet, place them inside the US, and arrange everyone so that no two people are touching.

A Closed System: Closed to what?

I mean I thought you people were supposed to be smart business types?

Unlike what’s potrayed in The Thorax, You’ll find that smart business types don’t extinguish the sources of their supplies. Loggers plant more than they cut down, for example. If they didn’t they’d be out of business.

Between all the Republicans in this country, you don’t have an ounce of scientific credibility among you, so your disbelief is really cute, but utterly pointless and only illustrative of how wrapped around their finger big business has got all of you retards.

Ah, the old “you don’t know what you are talking about, so STFU.”

Unfortunantely for you, NASA screwed up the temperature numbers, for instance. Which you should have already read about, since you pay close attention to Right-Wing blogs, and Michelle Malkin’s personal blog is the default one.

Are we talking about the election?

No, we aren’t.

Then why do you keep talking about him as if he is?

And anyway, as much as you people would love for us to forget all about George Bush and the Christ-like reverence you all inexplicably afforded him,

Are we making more assumptions? I thought you didn’t like those.

he’s still the President, like today, and will be for the next couple of months.

Apparently, it sucks to be you.

What’s more, the corrosive effect he’s had on our government will guarantee that Bush and his stupidity and corruption will be issues this election, and in the 2012 election, and beyond.

Wow. More assumptions!

Paul (b8f307) — 3/30/2008 @ 12:16 pm

Levi, I’ve found that when you can’t defend the subject of a critical post (like Google. You remember Google, right?) you instantly change the subject to bashing the Bush Administration.

Talk about a one-note samba.

Paul (b8f307) — 3/30/2008 @ 12:21 pm

Finite resources: How do you know the resources are finite? Ask Paul Erlich about his bet on “finite resources.”

Rampant Growth: You could take everyone in the United States, place them inside Texas, and arrange everyone so that no two people are touching.

You could take everyone on the planet, place them inside the US, and arrange everyone so that no two people are touching.

A Closed System: Closed to what?

So resources are infinite, huh? And growth is only a problem when we’re actually cramming into every corner of the planet shoulder-to-shoulder?

Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 12:38 pm

Levi, I’ve found that when you can’t defend the subject of a critical post (like Google. You remember Google, right?) you instantly change the subject to bashing the Bush Administration.

I posted in this thread because of the first retarded comment up at the top of the page. I couldn’t care less about Google or whatever dumbass point you want to make about it, like I said, you’re cogs in a machine.

And in any discussion of the environment, bringing up the current administration isn’t changing the subject, particularly when it’s as destructive as this one.

Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 12:43 pm

And the official line of the machine is exactly that; global warming probably isn’t happening and all environmental regulation can be justifiably eliminated by any sort of would-be extra cost or inconvenience, however slight or necessary, to business.

These aren’t assumptions, this is how the Bush administration has worked for the past decade.

Assuming for argument’s sake that “decade” is Levispeak for “7 years and 2 months,” that’s pretty much the way global temperatures have behaved during the subject period, as well. Of course that doesn’t matter to you true believers. If the earth heats up, it’s proof that the original hypothesis was correct. If it doesn’t, then as surely as only the true Messiah denies his divinity, that is proof, too. Right?

Xrlq (62cad4) — 3/30/2008 @ 12:45 pm

First of all, thank you to everyone for pointing out that I don’t know what a decade is. You got yourself a nice little ‘lol, look at this idiot liberal!’ pile-on going, but can we get the fuck on with it now?

My whole point is that global warming shouldn’t be an impetus to start giving a shit about the environment. The world doesn’t need to heat up to kill us, we can just poison ourselves to death or engage in perpetual war over an ever-dwindling supply of an increasingly valuable resource, like oil, or hey we could do a combination of all of those things!

If you can’t see that the environment is at the nexus of all these issues we’re facing today, public health, domestic security, illegal immigration, financial stability, education, international relations, etc., well you’re just a fucking idiot. Improving the environment would have profound effects on all those issues, how could they not? Those issues are playing out in the environment, after all.

Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 1:05 pm

So resources are infinite, huh?

Have you asked Paul Erlich about his bet?

And growth is only a problem when we’re actually cramming into every corner of the planet shoulder-to-shoulder?

Since we can fit everyone on the planet into roughly one-third of North America, and still have six more continents left over, I don’t think growth is a problem, despite leftist hysterics.

I posted in this thread because of the first retarded comment up at the top of the page. I couldn’t care less about Google or whatever dumbass point you want to make about it, like I said, you’re cogs in a machine.

No, the only thing you care about is winning an argument with us right-wing curmudgeons. You don’t like the fact that we’ve served you your ass on a silver paltter several times, which is why you keep coming back.

Admit it to yourself.

And in any discussion of the environment, bringing up the current administration isn’t changing the subject, particularly when it’s as destructive as this one.

Yes it is.

The thread is about Google. How is the Bush Administration tied to Google, especially since the two owners of Google are staunch, Bush-hating liberals?

Maybe you should care about Google, since you are so concerned about the enviroment. Google and its competitors have now started building data centers relying on carbon-spewing energy production with lower prices and fewer controls on emissions in places like Lithuania, Dublin, Siberia, and Shanghai. Well, not Lithuania…that’ll be nuclear.

Where’s your outrage?

Paul (b8f307) — 3/30/2008 @ 1:08 pm

You got yourself a nice little ‘lol, look at this idiot liberal!’ pile-on going, but can we get the fuck on with it now?

So when are you going to discuss Google?

If you can’t see that the environment is at the nexus of all these issues we’re facing today, public health, domestic security, illegal immigration, financial stability, education, international relations, etc., well you’re just a fucking idiot. Improving the environment would have profound effects on all those issues, how could they not?

Then why do the Global Warming Zealots need to provide The Consensus(tm) based on faulty computer models, falsified data and failure to follow the scientific method, so we’ll “just go along with it anyways?”

Embracing the truth really is a problem for you people.

Paul (b8f307) — 3/30/2008 @ 1:15 pm

Fuck everything you just wrote.

Answer this; do you really believe resources are infinite?

I know all about Paul Ehrlich, I’m really impressed you can name drop him, too. So let’s leave Paul out of it, for now, okay?

Do you think resources are infinite? I just need an answer, because that’s going to establish your intelligence level, and I’d like to save the time if I’m going to talk with some retard that believes in magic.

Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 1:29 pm

“Liberals aren’t ignorant, there is just so much they don’t know.”
Ronald Reagan

Keep hanging around Levi (BTW I can’t stand the fact that you took the name for one of the coolest tribes…)you may learn something here, but remember what we tell the rest of the young ‘uns
“God gave you Two ears and One mouth. that was so you will listen twice as much as you speak.”
here in Blogsville we’ll just change the “ears” to “eyes” and “hear” to “read” Ok?
Good Boy (pat, pat, tousle the hair.) now go sit down over there and let the adults talk.

Paul from Fl (47918a) — 3/30/2008 @ 1:37 pm

See even grown ups make mistakes, and take note of how we deal with them…
and “hear” to “read” Ok?
should have read “…and “listen” to “read” Ok?”
See how nice we can play here?

Paul from Fl (47918a) — 3/30/2008 @ 1:40 pm

Fuck everything you just wrote.

Please keep your sexual fantasies to yourself.

Answer this; do you really believe resources are infinite?

I asked “How do you know resources are finite?” in #49. Thus, I asked you first.

You really don’t know, do you?

I know all about Paul Ehrlich, I’m really impressed you can name drop him, too. So let’s leave Paul out of it, for now, okay?

Did you know who he is without Googling?

Do you think resources are infinite? I just need an answer, because that’s going to establish your intelligence level, and I’d like to save the time if I’m going to talk with some retard that believes in magic.

You’ve already called me incoherent, a retard, and implied I am a “fucking idiot.” Seems you have already determined my intelligence level to your satisfaction.

Besides, I though you didn’t give “two shits” about me.

Paul (b8f307) — 3/30/2008 @ 1:45 pm

Levi’s so lovely, I enjoy watching him “debate”.

It’s like a train wreck. Horrible to see, but you just can’t look away.

Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 3/30/2008 @ 2:28 pm

below the fold but oh well.
Levi, what the commenters are implying about Google is that they are “Greenwashing” themselves. Sort of like that oil company who put out that ad about the grove of aspens it set aside for deer to play in etc.etc

Wal Mart has greewashed itself too with its “green” initiative. The question is, so what if it IS greenwashing as long as it is effective? There are arguments both ways. While everyone argues I’m still glad that there are dedicated environmentalists like the people who showed WalMart the numbers and said “you not only will save money but look good”, and the people who wrote books like “50 things that you can do to save the world”, that informed people like me and maybe even paul from fl about things we could do now to make even a small difference (times 300 million households those add up).

I don’t care if people think grandstanders like Al Gore or Paul Ehrlich are wrong. I am glad that they are getting their message out. Luckily there are plenty of critics out there that, even if they are a pain in the butt, will keep the grandstanders honest.

EdWood (5f1d4c) — 3/30/2008 @ 9:33 pm

“Liberals aren’t ignorant, there is just so much they don’t know.”
Ronald Reagan

Keep hanging around Levi (BTW I can’t stand the fact that you took the name for one of the coolest tribes…)you may learn something here, but remember what we tell the rest of the young ‘uns
“God gave you Two ears and One mouth. that was so you will listen twice as much as you speak.”
here in Blogsville we’ll just change the “ears” to “eyes” and “hear” to “read” Ok?
Good Boy (pat, pat, tousle the hair.) now go sit down over there and let the adults talk.

What reason do I have to listen to you, Republican? You’re a Republican. Your complete failure and incompetence as holders of the public trust is manifest. You have nothing to teach me except how to run a country into the ground, and I probably could have figured out that myself.

How do you even have the balls to talk to somebody like that with the track record of your party for the last few years? I’m not impressed, I think the Republican party consists of a hodge-podge of criminals and idiots that the criminals are leading around with snake oil and shiny, silver things. And that’s not from some decades old political bias, that’s from watching this crapfest unfold before my eyes. I was a young, impressionable, politically neutral youth of 16 when Bush took office. There’s no excuse for my not being a card-carrying Republican other than Bush just sucks, hard.

As much as you blowhards like to talk about how dumb kids like me need history lessons, modern conservatism, Republicans, and Bush are not things we need a lesson on. We’ve seen it first hand, and it’s utter shit. You don’t get to 30% in the polls unless you’re utter shit. And I’m not going to even bother suggesting that maybe you could learn something from me, because you can’t. ‘Stay the course’ and whatnot.

Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 10:33 pm

There’s no excuse for my not being a card-carrying Republican

Levi – There is a good excuse. You’re too dumb to be a Republican. You have no idea what is good for you or the country and have a distorted understanding of history. The Democrats will welcome you though. They’re a bunch of liars, cheats and racists. Google it Levi!

daleyrocks (906622) — 3/30/2008 @ 11:00 pm

You make good points in some of your arguments Levi (having read many of them on several threads). What you apparently haven’t learned is that injecting phrases like “you hillbillys” or better “you fucking hillbillys” etc. into those good points makes anyone reading them immediately disregard anything else you have to say.

no-one is going to agree with you on most of the points you make but someone who isn’t a complete bobblehead may entertain the ideas, or at least be forced to question their own ideaology a little more closely, but not if you slip in a few gratuitous “f you”s in there.

But you probably already know that.

EdWood (ce490f) — 3/30/2008 @ 11:03 pm

Yeah Ed, I hear you. But what can I say? I love profanity. I do this for me more than I do it for others anyway, and yeah, sometimes sentences are just better with ‘fucking hillbillies’ somewhere in there.

Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 11:21 pm

What reason do I have to listen to you, Republican? You’re a Republican. Your complete failure and incompetence as holders of the public trust is manifest. You have nothing to teach me except how to run a country into the ground, and I probably could have figured out that myself.

I see Mr. Assumption makes his return with a 229-word comment. Yeah, he couldn’t care less about what’s said here.

How do you even have the balls to talk to somebody like that with the track record of your party for the last few years? I’m not impressed, I think the Republican party consists of a hodge-podge of criminals and idiots that the criminals are leading around with snake oil and shiny, silver things. And that’s not from some decades old political bias, that’s from watching this crapfest unfold before my eyes. I was a young, impressionable, politically neutral youth of 16 when Bush took office. There’s no excuse for my not being a card-carrying Republican other than Bush just sucks, hard.

And falls back on his default argument. Tired of getting whupped on facts, he uses pure opinion to make his point.

As much as you blowhards like to talk about how dumb kids like me need history lessons, modern conservatism, Republicans, and Bush are not things we need a lesson on. We’ve seen it first hand, and it’s utter shit. You don’t get to 30% in the polls unless you’re utter shit. And I’m not going to even bother suggesting that maybe you could learn something from me, because you can’t. ‘Stay the course’ and whatnot.

And brings up Bush’s poll numbers (Hey look! A fact in the whole mess!) while ignoring the even lower numbers (21%) of the Democrat-controlled Congress.

I love profanity.

Really? We’d have never guessed!

I do this for me more than I do it for others anyway, and yeah, sometimes sentences are just better with ‘fucking hillbillies’ somewhere in there.

Sooner or later you’ll get banned by our esteemed host if you don’t clean it up.

Paul (b8f307) — 3/31/2008 @ 1:46 am

And that’s not from some decades old political bias, that’s from watching this crapfest unfold before my eyes. I was a young, impressionable, politically neutral youth of 16 when Bush took office. There’s no excuse for my not being a card-carrying Republican other than Bush just sucks, hard.

In other words, by your own admission the only reason you hate the Bush Administration is that you are incapable of comparing it to anything else. I felt the same way myself about the first Bush Administration, and for largely the same reason. It only took about 3 months of the Clinton Administration to cure that, but by then the damage was done.

I’m sure you watching the Clinton Administration like a hawk yourself at the ripe old age of 8. In fact, I’m sure you were an expert on the Middle East before that, glued to CNN from the time Saddam invaded Kuwait until the day his last troops left. All this assumes, of course, that by age six or so you had mastered any English words other than “hillbilly” and “fuck.”

I love profanity.

No shit. Do you also love arrogance, poorly thought out ideas, and generally making yourself look like as big of an ass as possible?

Xrlq (62cad4) — 3/31/2008 @ 3:12 am

3/29/2008

Google’s Earth Hour

68 Responses to “Google’s Earth Hour”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out